A good case against God

[CliveStaples]

Lovely straw man. It goes up your ass too. I didn't say "PROOF". I said "EVIDENCE". figures you don't know what the fucking difference is.

You haven't supported your claim. You claimed that it is impossible to provide a shred of evidence that God exists, and you haven't supported that claim

That is not a bald assertion without support. That is pointing out that you and every other christard in the history of the world has failed to meet your burden of proof.

But that's not all you claimed. I'm not objecting to the portion where you claimed, "You have not provided a shred of evidence..." Rather, I objected to the portion where you went beyond the historical account of what has and hasn't been offered, and instead made a claim about what could even possibly be offered. Specifically, you claimed that it is impossible to provide a shred of proof that God exists.

Now, if this claim is true, it means that there can never be presentable evidence that theism is true. That seems like a big deal to me. I'd like to know how you know that it's the case. That is, what is your support? How do you know that it's true?

And yet it gets your little panties all in a bunch anyway. Back to the Kiddie Pool, Miss Priss.

Now you're just going through the motions. It's pretty fuckin obvious to anyone that every here gives less than two shits about cussing.

Go ahead, if you like. I note your attempt to dodge the inherent special pleading fallacy in the kalaam.

What special pleading are you talking about? Like I'm a fucking mind reader.

I find it lovely. Again you have nothing else to argue with, so you cry like a scalded bitch over colorful language. How fucking puerile.

The guy who just started getting in to R-rated movies is calling me puerile. See, now you're being funny.

You christards HAVE NOT provided a shred of evidence to support your claim. We know all about logical fallacies. And we know a fucktard xtian trying to play a shell game and dodge its burden of proof when we see one.

NB: I didn't object to your claim that Christians "...have not provided a shred of evidence to support [the claim that God exists]." That's not what I'm talking about.

Are you retarded? Do you have a learning disability? I wasn't aware that I was writing for a bunch of dyslexic aspies. I mean, I thought I was pretty clear about which claim I was objecting to--specifically, your claim that it is impossible to provide a shred of evidence that God exists.

But apparently you were too busy fisting your own asshole to bother parsing my posts, and now you're talking all about a completely different claim--specifically, that nobody has ever provided evidence that God exists.

What we are unwilling to do is to allow you to shift your burden of proof.

Uh, what? You made the claim. You have the burden. That's how claims work. The burden is not on me to disprove your claim.

Look, asshole. You claim your sky fairy exists.

Nope. Didn't actually do that. Anywhere.

Show it to us and make believers of us Put The Fuck Up Or Shut The Fuck Up.

Oh, so the burden is now on me to disprove your claim? Bunch of fucking amateurs in here. Go to read about logic on fucking wikipedia and come back once you know how logical fallacies work.

My assertion is that you have not provided any evidence whatsoever. Show me where you have and you shut me up for good.

Good luck with that.


Oh, yeah -- you already admitted you have no evidence.

/thread

I admit nothing. Nothing!

But you didn't only claim that I have not provided any evidence. You also claimed it would be impossible to do so. That's the claim that I'd like to see supported.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

You seriously believe that those men dressed up in red are Santa Claus? Who let you out of your nut-coat to post here?

They are in effect, Santa Clause. Just like someone with a mask of Barack Obama are, in effect, Barry Soetoro.

So they all live on the North Pole and fly a fucking sleigh with flying reindeer. Check. Fucking idiot.

[/quote]The point is there is, in both cases as in most cases, some mythology behind the truth. Atheists tend to want nothing more than to slander God without knowing much about the truth and the myth behind the meaning of the word God itself.
[/quote]

Oh yes, it's time for Atheist Bingo!


There would have to be a "god" for anyone to slander it,. You have provided no evidence that such a thing exists.

[CliveStaples]

God is supposed to be immaterial, right? Well, we live in the material world...

...well, you do seem like a material girl.

...where we're only concerned with real and tangible things. I'm assuming that you believe God has power over the affairs of this world. Well then, that would mean physical evidence would exist. Do you have any?

Wait, how do you know that if God has power over the affairs of this word, then there must be physical evidence He exists?

[downbeatplumb]

Wait, how do you know that if God has power over the affairs of this word, then there must be physical evidence He exists?

Ok re-read that sentence then think about it for a bit.

No clues.

My nine year old would get this.

[FallentoReason]

Wait, how do you know that if God has power over the affairs of this word, then there must be physical evidence He exists?

How else do you suppose he would have an influence? Unless it's a Deist god.

[CliveStaples]

Ok re-read that sentence then think about it for a bit.

No clues.

My nine year old would get this.

Inferences that rely on a 9 year-old's intuition about the world are probably not going to be very convincing.

[FallentoReason]

Clive, we posted at the exact same time but your post after mine. Just letting you know I've responded. Otherwise you might miss it...

[CliveStaples]

How else do you suppose he would have an influence? Unless it's a Deist god.

We can't even always detect it when humans influence the world. What makes you think that we could detect it if God could, who might have access to even more subtle methods than humans?

[Skepsis]

Wait, how do you know that if God has power over the affairs of this word, then there must be physical evidence He exists?

How else do you suppose he would have an influence? Unless it's a Deist god.

Doesn't matter is it is a deist God. If a God has power over current affairs in the world, then he must necessarily interact with the physical world.
It isn't that there must be physical evidence, but rather that physical evidence could be acquired. Hell, it would even be likely that there would exist somewhere evidence for a God.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

INCORRECT. I am pointing out your abject failure to meet your burden of proof.

Having made no claims, I have no burden of proof. You have claimed "X is true", where X = "It is impossible to provide a shred of evidence that God exists." You have so far refused to support this claim.

You haven't? Then take that "Protestant x-tard" off your title. But you have attempted to defend the preposterous kalaam argument, which is a claim of your sky fairy. Your "pragmatism" claim coming back to bite you in the ass, you know. And I have said "you" in the plural, meaning ALL of you idiots who claim a sky fairy have failed to present a shred of evidence to support it.

If that's the style of argument that's promoted here, then I could merely claim "It is possible to provide a shred of evidence that God exists." And my claim would have just as much support as yours does.[/quoet]

You cannot claim to have provided a shred of evidence.

[quiote]

I point out that you have failed to meet your burden of proof, to wit, you have not provided a shred of evidence. That is a "black swan" argument that you can destroy by providing a single bit of evidence. Now trot your fairy tale monster over to CNN and show the world, or shut the fuck up.

I haven't made any claims. In particular, I haven't made any claims that require evidence. You're asking me to support claims that I have never made; I'm asking you to support claims that you've made in this very thread.

"YOU" = You fucktard xturds. NO more shell games, Miss Priss.

Far better than you, little girl.

You're the one with an unsupported claim, Nancy.

I have pointed out that you xtards have failed to meet your burden of proof.

We know a hysterical with nothing else to argue but "The adults are swearing, boo hoo!!!!" when we see one.

Uh, I give zero fucks about swearing. In fact, I love it. You're just bad at it.

Are you REALLY still squealing about that, Miss Priss?

Yes, it means whatever you make it up to be. That is because it is the product of every x-tard's pathological lying.

Well, in the context of theism generally, I use it to mean "An omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good entity", or in a specifically Christian context, I use it to mean the God of the Bible.

For which you xtards have provided not a shred of evidence.

"You cannot provide a shred of EVIDENCE to support your claim of the existence of your fairy tale monster".

Yes, this is the claim that has zero support.

You haven't in the course of human history. Go on, then, trot out your big Nasty.

Ironic that a bunch of atheists are insisting that their claim is true because the theist can't prove it to be false. Well, well, well, how the turntables...turn.

Your extraordinary claim of a big Sky Daddy required extraordinary evidence. Of which you have not provided a shred in the entire course of human history.

---

Let's cut the shit, shall we? Like a simultaneous equation, we can eliminate the reduceable values and come to this:

You claim god exists.

We ask for evidence.

You may say "I've never once claimed the above" (Even though your 'title' claims otherwise), but your recent contributions on pragmatism eliminate that as an option; Your beliefs clearly influence your ideas/notions/beliefs on your god (or gods)

So the original claim that you believe your god exists holds true, which is the actual impasse of the situation as we're right back down to ZERO evidence again.

When claiming that a god or gods exist, yet not presenting evidence, it is reasonable to assume either:

1. That you do have evidence but are not presenting it, which precludes any notion of a reasonable discussion (and hence the motives for such participation can be called into doubt)
(or)
2. That you in fact do not have evidence to produce and so it can be deduced that, indeed, one does not have a "shred of proof" that a god or gods exist.

Now the only way you can combat this is by either presenting evidence or going down the whole argument of "this is evidence you just refuse to accept it as such"...and I don't think that will fly here for a second.

All this is an aside however. The OP is wrong straight from the outset. We need something defined, described, and indeed evidenced if we're to discuss and evaluate it; so far, none of this has been done.

Uh, nope, I haven't claimed that God exists. I came into this thread and saw Taq claim that it's impossible to provide a shred of evidence that God exists.

Fucking liar. Cite where I said "impossible". I said you assholes have not provided any evidence. All of this bullshit is simply you squirming to dodge your burden of proof.